伊拉克肿瘤学家放射治疗耐药性知识评估工具的开发与心理计量学验证。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan, Ali Haider Mohammed, Ahmed Zuhair Abdulhameed Alsammarraie, Musaab Kadhim Alabboodi
{"title":"伊拉克肿瘤学家放射治疗耐药性知识评估工具的开发与心理计量学验证。","authors":"Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan, Ali Haider Mohammed, Ahmed Zuhair Abdulhameed Alsammarraie, Musaab Kadhim Alabboodi","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Psychometric Validation of a Knowledge Assessment Tool on Radiotherapy Resistance Among Oncologists in Iraq.\",\"authors\":\"Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan, Ali Haider Mohammed, Ahmed Zuhair Abdulhameed Alsammarraie, Musaab Kadhim Alabboodi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

放疗耐药(RTR)是肿瘤治疗中的重要障碍,影响治疗结果和临床决策。尽管它很重要,但目前还没有标准化的工具来衡量肿瘤学家对RTR的了解。本研究旨在开发并验证一份全面的调查问卷,以评估肿瘤学家对RTR的了解。经过一个多阶段的过程,编制了一份有29个项目的调查表。最初的45个项目由5名专家组成的小组通过内容和外观效度评估进行了改进,导致项目修改和删除。数据收集自伊拉克的400名肿瘤学家。采用探索性因子分析(EFA)和验证性因子分析(CFA)建立构效度,采用Cronbach's alpha、复合信度(CR)和项目反应理论(IRT)分析评估内部一致性和项目绩效。EFA证实了问卷的八域结构,所有项目的因子负荷都超过0.70。CFA模型拟合良好,CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06。内部一致性高,整体问卷的Cronbach's alpha为0.93,CR为0.94。IRT分析显示,所有项目都具有可接受的难度、辨析和猜测参数,表明这些项目有效地区分了不同知识水平的肿瘤学家。最终的29项问卷涵盖了关键的RTR领域,包括常规和联合治疗、放射耐药、敏感性和耐药性。经验证的29项知识问卷具有较强的心理测量特性,是评估肿瘤学家RTR知识的可靠工具。这个工具可以支持肿瘤学教育、培训和研究。未来的研究应关注跨文化验证、重测信度以及RTR知识如何影响临床决策。该工具对于改善伊拉克的肿瘤学培训和临床决策尤其重要。在伊拉克,设备有限、培训差距和获得放射增敏剂不均等等系统性障碍对癌症护理构成挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Psychometric Validation of a Knowledge Assessment Tool on Radiotherapy Resistance Among Oncologists in Iraq.

Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Education
Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信